An empty jury box in a US courtroom

A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict (a finding of fact on a question) officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty, not guilty, or (in Scotland) not proven. Juries are composed of jurors (also sometimes known as jurymen), who are by definition layman finders of fact, not professionals.

The old institution of grand juries still exist in some places, particularly the United States, to investigate whether enough evidence of a crime exists to bring someone to trial.

The jury arrangement has evolved out of the earliest juries, which were found in early medieval England. Members were supposed to inform themselves of crimes and then of the details of the crimes. Their function was therefore closer to that of a grand jury than that of a jury in a trial.

Etymology[link]

The word jury derives from (Norman) French, "juré (sworn)". Juries are most common in common law adversarial-system jurisdictions. In the modern system, juries act as triers of fact, while judges act as triers of law. A trial without a jury (in which both questions of fact and questions of law are decided by a judge) is known as a bench trial.

Types of jury[link]

The "petit jury" (or "trial jury") hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases.

In civil cases many trials require only eight. Juries are almost never used in civil cases outside the United States and Canada. Other states with a common law tradition sometimes use them in defamation cases, in cases involving a governmental eminent domain power, and in cases involving alleged wrongful conviction. Civil law countries generally do not use civil juries. Civil juries are available in theory in the United States and Canada in almost all cases where the only remedy sought is money damages, although in practice they are sought only in large dollar cases.

A grand jury, a type of jury now confined almost exclusively to federal courts and some state jurisdictions in the United States, determines whether there is enough evidence for a criminal trial to go forward. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger than and distinguishable from the petit jury used during a trial, with at least 12 jurors. A grand jury does not require a suspect be notified of the proceedings, and grand juries can be used for filing charges in the form of a sealed indictment against unaware suspects to be arrested later by a surprise police visit.

Composition[link]

Serving on a jury is normally compulsory for those individuals who are qualified for jury service. Since a jury is intended to be an impartial panel capable of reaching a verdict, there are often procedures and requirements, for instance, fluent understanding of the language, or the ability to test jurors or otherwise exclude jurors who might be perceived as less than neutral or more partial to hear one side or the other. Juries are initially chosen randomly from the eligible population residing in the court's jurisdictional area (unless a change of venue has occurred). Jury selection varies widely; in the United States, some form of organized questioning of the prospective jurors (jury pool) occurs—voir dire—before the jury is selected impaneled.

A head juror is called the "foreman" or "presiding juror". The foreman is often chosen before the trial begins or upon the beginning of deliberations. The role of the foreman is to ask questions on behalf of the jury, facilitate jury discussions, and sometimes to read the verdict of the jury. Since there is always the possibility of jurors not completing the trial for health or other reasons, often one or more alternate jurors are nominated. Alternates hear the trial but do not take part in deciding the verdict unless a juror is unable to deliberate. In Connecticut, alternate jurors are dismissed before the panel of sworn jurors begin deliberation. Connecticut General Statutes 51-243(e) and 54-82h do not allow alternate jurors to be segregated from the regular sworn jurors. In civil cases in Connecticut, C.G.S. 51-243(e) declares that alternate jurors "shall be dismissed." This differs from the power given to the Court in criminal trials under C.G.S. 54-82h, permitting the Court to not dismiss the alternate jurors, and have the regular jury panel begin deliberations.

Historical roots[link]

The Jury an 1861 painting of a British jury

The modern jury evolved out of the ancient custom of many ancient Germanic tribes whereby a group of men of good character was used to investigate crimes and/or judge the accused. The same custom evolved into the vehmic court system in medieval Germany. In Anglo-Saxon England, juries investigated crimes. After the Norman Conquest, some parts of the country preserved juries as the means of investigating crimes. The use of ordinary members of the community to consider crimes was unusual in ancient cultures, but was nonetheless also found in ancient Greece.

The modern jury trial evolved out of this custom in the mid 12th century during the reign of Henry II.^[1] Juries, usually 6 or 12 men, were an "ancient institution" in some parts of England. ("Henry II" 286) Members consisted of representatives of the basic units of local government—hundreds (an administrative sub-division of the shire, embracing several vills) and villages. Called juries of presentment, these men testified under oath to crimes committed in their neighborhood and indicted. The Assize of Clarendon in 1166 caused these juries to be adopted systematically throughout the country. The jury in this period was "self-informing," meaning it heard very little evidence or testimony in court. Instead, jurors were recruited from the locality of the dispute and were expected to know the facts before coming to court. The source of juror knowledge could include first-hand knowledge, investigation, and less reliable sources such as rumor and hearsay.^[2]

Between 1166 and 1179 new procedures including a division of functions between the sheriff, the jury of local men, and the royal justices ushered in the era of the English Common Law. Sheriffs prepared cases for trial and found jurors with relevant knowledge and testimony. Jurors 'found' a verdict by witnessing as to fact, even assessing and apply information from their own and community memory — little was written at this time and what was: deeds, writs, were subject to fraud. Royal justices supervised trials, answered questions as to law and announced the court's decision which was subject to appeal. Sheriffs executed the decision. These procedures enabled Henry II to delegate authority without endowing his subordinates with too much power. ("Henry II" 293)

In 1215 the Roman Catholic Church removed its sanction from all forms of ordeal — procedures by which suspects were 'tested' as to guilt (e.g., the ordeal of hot metal was applied to a suspected thief by pouring molten metal into his hand, if the wound healed rapidly and well, it was believed God found the suspect innocent, if not then guilty). With the ordeals banned, establishing guilt would have been problematic, had England not had forty years of judicial experience. Justices were accustomed to asking jurors of presentment about points of fact in assessing indictments; it was a short step to ask jurors if the accused was guilty as charged. ("Henry II" 358)

An early reference to a jury type group in England is in a decree issued by Aethelred at Wantage (997), which enacted that in every Hundred "the twelve leading thegns together with the reeve shall go out and swear on the relics which are given into their hands, that they will not accuse any innocent man nor shield a guilty one."^[3] The resulting Wantage Code code formally recognized legal customs that were part of the Danelaw.^[4]

The testimonial concept can also be traced to Normandy before 1066, when a jury of nobles was established to decide land disputes. In this manner, the Duke, being the largest land owner, could not act as a judge in his own case.^[5]

One of the earliest antecedents of modern jury systems are juries in ancient Greece, including the city-state of Athens, where records of jury courts date back to 500 BCE. These voted by secret ballot and were eventually granted the power to annul unconstitutional laws, thus introducing judicial review. In modern systems, law is "self-contained" and "distinct from other coercive forces, and perceived as separate from the political life of the community," but "all these barriers are absent in the context of classical Athens. In practice and in conception the law and its administration are in some important respects indistinguishable from the life of the community in general."^[6]

18th century England[link]

In 1730, the British Parliament passed the Bill for Better Regulation of Juries.^[7] The Act stipulated that the list of all those liable for jury service was to be posted in each parish and that jury panels would be selected by lot, also known as sortition, from these lists. Its aim was to prevent middle-class citizens from evading their responsibilities by financially putting into question the neutrality of the under-sheriff, the official entrusted with impanelling juries.

Prior to the Act, the main means of ensuring impartiality was by allowing legal challenges to the sheriff’s choices. The new provisions did not specifically aim at establishing impartiality, but had the effect of reinforcing the authority of the jury by guaranteeing impartiality at the point of selection.

The example of early 18th century England legal reform shows how civic lotteries can be used to organize the duties and responsibilities of the citizen body in relation to the state. It established the impartiality and neutrality of juries as well as reiterating the dual nature of the citizen-state relationship...

Trial jury size[link]

About 50 prospective jurors awaiting jury selection

The size of the jury is to provide a "cross-section" of the public. In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Florida state jury of six was sufficient, and that "the 12-man panel is not a necessary ingredient of "trial by jury," and that respondent's refusal to impanel more than the six members provided for by Florida law did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights as applied to the States through the Fourteenth."^[8]

In Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, the High Court of Australia unanimously held that a jury of 12 members was not an essential feature of "trial by jury" in section 80 of the Australian Constitution.

In Scotland, a jury in a criminal trial consists of 15 jurors, which is thought to be the largest in the world. In 2009 a review by the Scottish Government regarding the possibility of reduction,^[9] led to the decision to retain 15 jurors, with the Secretary for Justice stating that after extensive consultation, he had decided that Scotland had got it "uniquely right".^[10]

For juries to fulfill their role to analyze the facts of the case, there are strict rules about their use of information during the trial. Juries are often instructed to avoid learning about the case from any source other than the trial (such as from media accounts) and to not attempt to conduct their own investigations (such as independently visiting a crime scene). Parties, lawyers, and witnesses are not allowed to speak with a member of the jury. Doing these things may constitute reversible error. In very rare, high-profile cases, juries may be sequestered for the deliberation phase or for the entire trial.

Conversely, jurors are generally required to keep their deliberations in strict confidence during the trial and deliberations, and in some jurisdictions even after a verdict is rendered. In English law, the jury's deliberations must never be disclosed outside the jury, even years after the case; to repeat parts of the trial or verdict, is considered to be contempt of court, a criminal offense. In the United States, this rule usually does not apply, and sometimes jurors have made remarks that called into question whether a verdict was properly arrived at. In Australia, academics are permitted to scrutinize the jury process only after obtaining a certificate or approval from the Attorney-General.

Because of the desire to prevent undue influence on a jury, jury tampering (like witness tampering) is a serious crime, whether attempted through bribery, threat of violence, or other means. Jurors themselves can also be held liable if they deliberately compromise their impartiality.

A study by the University of Glasgow showed that a jury of 12 people was ineffective because a few jurors ended up dominating the discussion, and that seven was a better number because more people feel comfortable speaking, and they have an easier time reaching a unanimous decision.^[11]

Role[link]

The role of the jury is seemingly accurate to a finder of fact, while the judge is seen as having the sole responsibility of interpreting the appropriate law and instructing the jury accordingly. The jury will render a verdict on the defendant's guilt, or civil liability. Sometimes a jury will also make specific findings of fact in what is called a "special verdict." A verdict without specific findings of fact that includes only findings of guilt, civil liability and an overall amount of civil damages, if awarded, is called a "general verdict."

Juries are often justified because they leaven the law with community norms.^[12] Jury trial verdicts are not, however, legally binding precedents in other cases. For example, it would be possible for one jury to find that particular conduct is negligent, and another jury to find that it is not negligent, without either verdict being legally invalid, on precisely the same factual evidence. Occasionally, if jurors find the law to be invalid or unfair, they may acquit the defendant, regardless of the evidence that the defendant violated the law. This is commonly referred to as "jury nullification of law" or simply jury nullification. When there is no jury ("bench trial"), the judge makes rulings on both questions of law and of fact. In most continental European jurisdictions, the judges have more power in a trial and the role and powers of a jury are often restricted. Actual jury law and trial procedures differ between countries.

The collective knowledge and deliberate nature of juries are also given as reasons in their favor:

Detailed interviews with jurors after they rendered verdicts in trials involving complex expert testimony have demonstrated careful and critical analysis. The interviewed jurors clearly recognized that the experts were selected within an adversary process. They employed sensible techniques to evaluate the experts’ testimony, such as assessing the completeness and consistency of the testimony, comparing it with other evidence at the trial, and evaluating it against their own knowledge and life experience. Moreover, the research shows that in deliberations jurors combine their individual perspectives on the evidence and debate its relative merits before arriving at a verdict.^[13]

In the United States, juries are also entitled, when asked to do so by a judge in their jury instructions, to make factual findings on particular aggravating circumstances which will be used to elevate the defendant's sentence, if the defendant is convicted. This practice was required in all death penalty cases in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), where the Supreme Court ruled that allowing judges to make such findings unilaterally violates the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. A similar Sixth-Amendment argument in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) expanded the requirement to all cases, holding that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt".^[14]

Many U.S. jurisdictions permit the seating of an advisory jury in a civil case in which there is no right to trial by jury to provide non-binding advice to the trial judge,^[15] although this procedural tool is rarely used. For example, a judge might seat an advisory jury to guide the judge in awarding non-economic damages in a case where there is no right to a jury trial, such as a personal injury suit brought against a state government.

In Canada, juries are also allowed to make suggestions for sentencing periods and at the time of sentencing, the suggestions of the jury are presented before the judge by the Crown prosecutor(s) before the sentence is handed down. A small number of U.S. jurisdictions, including Texas, give juries the right to set sentences as well as to find guilt or innocence.

However, this is not the practice in most other legal systems based on the English tradition, in which judges retain sole responsibility for deciding sentences according to law. The exception is the award of damages in English law libel cases, although a judge is now obliged to make a recommendation to the jury as to the appropriate amount.

In legal systems based on English tradition, findings of fact by a jury and jury conclusions that could be supported by jury findings of fact when the specific factual basis for the verdict is not known, are entitled to great deference on appeal. In other legal systems, it is generally possible to reconsidered both findings of fact and findings of law made at the trial court level and evidence may be presented to appellate courts in what amounts to a trial de novo of appealled findings of fact made by the court of first instance in a case. The finality of trial court findings of fact in legal systems based on the English tradition has major impact on court procedure in these systems. This finality makes it imperative that lawyers be highly prepared for trial in the first instance in high stakes cases with jury trials based on the English tradition, because errors and misjudgments related to the presentation of evidence at trial to a jury cannot generally be corrected later on appeal. Surprises at trial are much more consequential in jury trials in systems based on the English tradition than they are in other legal systems as a result, so in these systems trial preparation to avoid any possibility of surprise is more important than it might be otherwise.

Jury nullification[link]

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."^[16]

In the 17th and 18th centuries there were a series of cases starting in 1670 with the trial of the Quaker William Penn which asserted the (de facto) right of a jury to pass a verdict contrary to the facts or law. A good example is the case of one Carnegie of Finhaven who in 1728 accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury to pass the verdict that the case had been "proven" and cause Carnegie of Finhaven to die for an accidental killing. Instead the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts and brought in the verdict of "not guilty". This led to the development of the not proven verdict in Scots law.

Today in the United States, juries are instructed by the judge to follow his or her instructions concerning what is the "law", in his or her opinion, and to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented in court. If it reaches a conclusion contrary to those instructions, but based on its own beliefs as to what the law is, whether it has been properly applied, or whether it should be the law, this is known as jury nullification. It finds its most common expression when verdicts are rendered based on passion, prejudice, sympathy or bias. It has been asserted that the jury has the power to "nullify" a law it believes is unjust, by, for example, refusing to find the defendant guilty, in spite of the evidence, if it believes that a guilty verdict would be unjust. Important past exercises of this de facto power include cases involving slavery (see Fugitive Slave Act of 1850), freedom of the press (see John Peter Zenger), and freedom of religion (see William Penn).

In United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th. Cir. 1969), Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal unanimously ruled: "If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision." The Fully Informed Jury Association is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to informing jurors of their rights and seeks laws to force judges to inform jurors that they can and should judge the law. In Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws.

Modern American jurisprudence is generally intolerant of the practice, and a juror can be removed from a case if the judge believes that the juror is aware of the power of nullification.^[17]

Jury equity[link]

In the United Kingdom, a similar power exists, often called "jury equity". This enables a jury to reach a decision in direct contradiction with the law if they feel the law is unjust. This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge – thus a jury has the power to influence the law.

Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales was the acquittal of Clive Ponting, on a charge of revealing secret information, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in 1985. Mr Ponting's defence was that the revelation was in the public interest. The trial judge directed the jury that "the public interest is what the government of the day says it is" – effectively a direction to the jury to convict. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

Another example is the acquittal in 1989 of Michael Randle and Pat Pottle, who confessed in open court to charges of springing the Soviet spy George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs Prison and smuggling him to East Germany in 1966. Pottle successfully appealed to the jury to disregard the judge's instruction that they consider only whether the defendants were guilty in law, and assert a jury's ancient right to throw out a politically motivated prosecution, in this case compounded by its cynical untimeliness.^[18]

In Scotland (with a separate legal system from that of England and Wales) although technically the "not guilty" verdict was originally a form of jury nullification, over time the interpretation has changed so that now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal one when a jury is not persuaded of guilt and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.^[19] It is absolutely central to Scottish and English law that there is a presumption of innocence. It is not a trivial distinction since any shift in the burden of proof is a significant change which undermines the safeguard for the citizen.^[20]

Advantages and Disadvantages of a jury system[link]

Advantages of a jury system[link]

• As there are many persons from different backgrounds, any individual prejudices are likely to cancel out.^{[original research?]}
• Juries represent the common public and therefore are more likely to judge in line with generally accepted values of the society.
• Discussions among juries are likely to lead to more thorough consideration of all aspects of the case.
• It is more difficult to corrupt 12 jurors though than one (or three) judge(s).

Disadvantages of a jury system[link]

• The jury members are with a few exceptions not knowledgeable about the law and are unfamiliar with court procedure, decisions might be based on emotions rather than rationale arguing.^{[original research?]}
• Complex cases tend to require special expertise to judge the case which a jury do not have.
• The jury members are more susceptible to the rhetoric impressions and mesmerised by the eloquence of a lawyer than a judge, they tend to be over-awed by the whole experience.
• Since the decision by jury is a group decision, individual members of the jury may not feel that responsible about their duties and therefore neglect it.
• Group pressure might be influential on the decision.
• Juries may be swayed by the current prejudices in the society, which are not supported by law.
• A jury system is very costly.

Non-trial juries[link]

A wine jury

Besides petit juries for jury trials and grand juries for issuing indictments, juries are sometimes used in non-legal or quasi-legal contexts. Blue ribbon juries attend to civic matters as an ad-hoc body in the executive branch of a government. Outside government, a jury or panel of judges may make determinations in competition, such as at a wine tasting, art exhibition, or talent contest. These types of contests are juried competitions.

Blue ribbon juries are juries selected from prominent, well-educated citizens, sometimes to investigate a particular problem such as civic corruption. Blue ribbon juries cannot be used in real trials, which require constitutional safeguards to produce a jury of one's peers. The blue-ribbon jury is intended to overcome the problems of ordinary juries in interpreting complex technical or commercial questions. In the United States blue-ribbon juries were provided for by statutes, the terms varying by jurisdiction.

Trial procedures[link]

Australia[link]

States[link]

Each State may determine the extent to which the use of a Jury is used. The use of a Jury is optional for civil trials in any Australian State.^{[citation needed]} The use of a Jury in criminal trials is generally by unanimous verdict of 12 lay members of the public. Some States provide exceptions such as majority (11-to-1 or 10-to-2) verdicts where a jury cannot otherwise reach a verdict. Sometimes a State law may allow an accused person to elect to use a Judge-only trial rather than the default Jury provision.

Commonwealth (Federal)[link]

The Constitution of Australia provides in section 80 that 'the trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury'. The Commonwealth can determine which offences are 'on indictment': Cheng v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 248 (McHugh and Callinan JJ, Kirby J dissenting). It would be entirely consistent with the Constitution that a Homicide offence could be tried not 'on indictment,' or conversely that a simple Assault could be tried 'on indictment.' This interpretation has been criticised a 'mockery' of the section, rendering it useless: R v Federal Court of Bankruptcy; Ex parte Lowenstein (1939) 59 CLR 556 (Dixon and Evatt JJ dissenting).

Where a trial 'on indictment' has been prescribed, it is an essential element that it be found by a unanimous verdict of guilty by 12 lay members of the public. This requirement stems from the (historical) meaning of 'jury' at the time that the Constitution was written and is (in principle) thus an integral element of trial by jury:Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541 (per curiam). Unlike States, an accused person cannot elect a Judge-only trial.

Belgium[link]

The Belgian Constitution provides that all cases involving the most serious crimes be judged by juries. As a safeguard against libel cases, press crimes can also only be tried by jury. Racism is excluded from this safeguard.

Twelve jurors decide by majority whether the defendant is guilty or not. A tied vote results in 'not guilty'; a '7 guilty - 5 not guilty' vote is transferred to the 3 professional judges who can, by unanimity, reverse the majority to 'not guilty'. The sentence is delivered by a majority of the 12 jurors and the 3 professional judges.^[21] As a result of the Taxquet ruling the juries give nowadays the most important motives that lead them to their verdict. The procedural codification has been altered to meet the demands formulated by the European Court of Human Rights.

Brazil[link]

The Constitution of Brazil provides that only willful crimes against life, namely full or attempted murder, abortion, infanticide and suicide instigation, be judged by juries. Seven jurors vote in secret to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not, and decisions are taken by majority.

Manslaughter and other crimes in which the killing was committed without intent, however, are judged by a professional judge instead.

Canada[link]

In Canada, juries are used for some criminal trials but not others. For summary conviction offences^[22] or offences found under section 553 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the trial is before a judge alone. For most indictable offences, the accused person can elect to be tried by either a judge alone or a judge and jury.^[23] In the most serious offences, found in section 469 of the Criminal Code of Canada (such as murder or treason), a judge and a jury are always used, unless both the accused and the prosecutor agree that the trial should not be in front of a jury.^[24] The jury's verdict on the ultimate disposition of guilt or innocence must be unanimous,^[25] but can disagree on the evidentiary route that leads to that disposition.^[26][27]

Juries do not make a recommendation as to the length of sentence, except for parole ineligibility for second-degree murder (but the judge is not bound by the jury's recommendation, and the jury is not required to make a recommendation).^[25]

Jury selection is in accordance with specific criteria. Prospective jurors may only be asked certain questions, selected for direct pertinence to impartiality or other relevant matters. Any other questions must be approved by the judge.

A jury in a criminal trial is initially composed of 12 jurors. There are no substitute jurors. Instead, if a juror is discharged during the course of the trial, the trial will continue unless the number of jurors goes below 10.^[25]

The Canadian constitution guarantees that anyone tried for an offence that has a maximum sentence of five or more years has the right to be tried by a jury (except for an offence under military law).

The names of jurors are protected by a publication ban. There is a specific criminal offence for disclosing anything that takes place during jury deliberations.^[25]

Juries are infrequently used in civil trials in Canada. Because juries have no power to award damages, as they do in the United States, there is less incentive to call for a trial with a jury.

For further reading: Jury Trial in Canada

England and Wales[link]

In England and Wales jury trials are used for criminal cases, requiring 12 (between the ages of 18 and 70) jurors. The right to a jury trial has been enshrined in English law since Magna Carta in 1215, and is most common in the serious cases, although the defendant can insist on a jury trial for most criminal matters. Jury trials have been described as expensive and time-consuming in complex fraud cases by some members and appointees of the Labour Party.^[28] In contrast, the Bar Council, Liberty and other political parties have supported the idea that trial by jury is at the heart of the judicial system and placed the blame for a few complicated jury trials failing on inadequate preparation by the prosecution.^[29] On 18 June 2009 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, sitting in the Court of Appeal, made English legal history by ruling that a criminal trial in the Crown Court could take place without a jury.^[30]

Jury trials are also available for some few areas of civil law (for example cases involving police conduct), which require 10 jurors not 12, but less than one percent of civil trials involve juries.^[31] At the new Manchester Civil Justice Centre, constructed in 2008, of the 48 courtrooms, fewer than 10 had jury facilities.

France[link]

In the Cour d'assises[link]

Nine (in first instance proceedings) or twelve (in appeal proceedings) jurors sit around three judges. The judges' opinion adds up to the one of the jury to definitely convict the defendant, with a majority of seven (in first instance) or nine (in appeal) needed in order to convict the defendant. During these procedures, judges and jurors have equal positions on questions of facts, while judges decide on questions of procedure. Judges and jurors have also equal positions on sentencing.

Germany[link]

Trial by jury was introduced in most German states after the revolutionary events of 1848; however, it remained controversial and early in the 20th century there were moves to abolish it.^[32] The Emminger Reform of January 4, 1924, during an Article 48 state of emergency, abolished the jury system and replaced it with a mixed system including bench trials and lay judges. In 1925 the Social Democrats called for the reinstitution of the jury, and a special meeting of the German Bar demanded revocation of the decrees, but "on the whole the abolition of the jury caused little commotion".^[33] Their verdicts were widely perceived as unjust and inconsistent.

Today, most misdemeanors are tried by a Strafrichter, meaning a single judge at an Amtsgericht; felonys and more severe misdemeanors are tried by a Schöffengericht, also located at the Amtsgericht, composed of 1 judge and 2 lay judges; some felonies are heard by Erweitertes Schöffengericht, or extended Schöffengericht, composed of 2 judges and 2 lay judges; severe felonies and other "special" crimes are tried by the große Strafkammer, composed of 3 judges and 2 lay judges at the Landgericht, with specially assigned courts for some crimes called Sonderstrafkammer; felonies resulting in the death of a human being are tried by the Schwurgericht, composed of 3 judges and 2 lay judges, located at the Landgericht; and serious crimes against the state are tried by the Strafsenat, composed of 5 judges' at an Oberlandesgericht.^[34] In some civil cases, such as commercial law or patent law, there are also lay judges, who have to meet certain criteria (e.g. being a merchant).

Hong Kong[link]

The Hong Kong Basic Law, Article 86, assures the practice of jury trials. Most serious criminal cases and some civil cases are tried by jury in Hong Kong. In addition, from time to time, the Coroner’s Court may summon a jury to decide the cause of death in an inquest. Criminal cases are normally tried by a 7-person jury and sometimes, at the discretion of the court, a 9-person jury. Nevertheless, the Jury Ordinance requires that a jury in any proceedings should be composed of at least 5 jurors.

Although Article 86 of the Basic Law states that ‘the principle of trial by jury previously practised in Hong Kong shall be maintained’, it does not guarantee that every case is to be tried by jury. In Chiang Lily v. Secretary for Justice (2010), the Court of Final Appeal agreed that ‘there is no right to trial by jury in Hong Kong.’

India[link]

Juries were formerly used in India up until the famous KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra (1959), which led to the abolition of jury trials, although minor issues in rural areas are still handled by the panchayat raj system of village assemblies.

In the Nanavati case, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was tried for the murder of his wife Sylvia's paramour, Prem Ahuja. The incident shocked the nation, got unprecedented media coverage, and inspired several books and movies. The case was the last jury trial held in India. The central question of the case was whether the gun went off accidentally or whether it was a premeditated murder.

In the former scenario, Nanavati would be charged under the Indian penal code, for culpable homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. In the latter, he would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment. Nanavati pleaded not guilty. His defence team argued it was a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.

The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati not guilty with an 8–1 verdict. The sessions judge considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the high court. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points. One, the onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati. Two, was Sylvia's confession of the grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both. Three, the judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person. And four, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. Since the jury had also been influenced by media and public support for Nanavati and was also open to being misled, the Indian government abolished jury trials after the case.

Ireland[link]

History of juries in Ireland[link]

Juries were introduced into Ireland as part of the transplantation of common law.

Modern Irish juries[link]

In Ireland, a common law jurisdiction jury trials are available for criminal before the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation cases. Consisting of twelve persons, juries are selected from a jury panel which is picked at random by the county registrar from the electoral register. Juries only decide questions of fact. They have no role in criminal sentencing or awarding damages in libel cases. It is not necessary that a jury be unanimous in its verdict. In civil cases, a verdict may be reached by a majority of nine of the twelve members. In a criminal case, a verdict need not be unanimous where there are not fewer than eleven jurors if ten of them agree on a verdict after considering the case for a "reasonable time".

For certain terrorist and organised crime offences the Director of Public Prosecutions may issue a certificate that the accused be tried by the Special Criminal Court. Instead of a jury the Special Criminal Court consists of three judges, one from the District Court, Circuit Court and High Court.

The constitutional provisions regulating the Trial of Offences are set out in article 37 of the Irish Constitution. DPP v McNally sets out that a jury has the right to reach a not guilty verdict even in direct contradiction of the evidence. The principal statute regulating the selection, obligations and conduct of juries is the Juries Act 1976 as amended by the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, which scrapped the upper age limit of 70. Juries are not paid, nor do they receive travel expenses, however they do receive lunch for the days that they are serving.

In 2010, the Irish Law Reform Commission published a Consultation Paper on Jury Service, and proposed reforms are expected by 2011.

Italy[link]

In Italy, a Civil law jurisdiction, untrained judges are present only in the Corte d'Assise, where two career magistrates are supported by six so-called Lay Judges, who are raffled from the registrar of voters. Any Italian citizen, with no distinction of sex or religion, between 30 and 65 years of age, can be appointed as a lay judge; in order to be eligible as a lay judge for the Corte d'Assise, however, there is a minimum educational requirement, as the lay judge must have completed his/her education at the Scuola Media (junior high school) level, while said level is raised for the Corte d'Assise d'Appello (appeal level of the Corte d'Assise) to the Scuola Superiore (senior high school) degree. In the Corte d'Assise, decisions both fact and law matters are taken by the stipendiary judges and "Lay Judges" together at a special meeting behind closed doors, named Camera di Consiglio ("Counsel Chamber"), and the Court is subsequently required to publish written explanations of its decisions within 90 days from the verdict. Errors of law or inconsistencies in the explanation of a decision can and usually will lead to the annulment of the decision. A Court d'Assise and a Court d' Assise d'Appello decides on a majority of votes, and therefore predominantly on the votes of the lay judges, who are a majority of six to two, but in actual fact lay judges, who are not trained to write such explanation and must rely on one or the other stipendiary judge to do it, are effectively prevented from overruling both of them. The Corte d'Assise has jurisdiction to try crimes carrying a maximum penalty of 24 years in prison or life imprisonment, and other serious crimes; felonies that fall under its jurisdiction include terrorism, murder, manslaughter, severe attempts against State personalities, as well as some matters of law requiring ethical and professional evaluations (ex. assisted suicide), while it generally has no jurisdiction over cases whose evaluation requires knowledges of Law which the "Lay Judges" generally don't have. Penalties imposed by the court can include life sentences.

New Zealand[link]

Juries are used in trials for all indictable offences and, at the option of the defendant, summary offences that can be punished with more than 3 months in prison. In civil cases juries are usually only used in cases of defamation. Previously requiring unanimous support, New Zealand now permits majority results of 10-1 or 11-1.^[35]

Northern Ireland[link]

During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, jury trials were suspended and trials took place before Diplock Courts. These were essentially trials before judges only. This was to combat the intimidation of juries.^{[citation needed]}

Norway[link]

The jury was introduced in 1887, and is solely used in criminal cases on the second tier of the three-tier Norwegian court system ("Lagmannsretten"). The jury consists of 10 people, and has to reach a majority verdict consisting of seven or more of the jurors.^[36] The jury never gives a reason for its verdict, rather it simply gives a "guilty" or "non-guilty" verdict.

In a sense, the concept of being judged by one's peers exists on both the first and second tier of the Norwegian court system: In Tingretten, one judge and two lay judges preside, and in Lagmannsretten three judges and four lay judges preside (if a jury is not used). The lay judges do not hold any legal qualification, and represent the peers of the person on trial, as members of the general public. As a guarantee against any abuse of power by the educated elite, the number of lay judges always exceeds the number of appointed judges. In the Supreme Court, only trained lawyers are seated.

Scotland[link]

Scottish trials are based on an adversarial approach. First the prosecution leads evidence from witnesses and after each witness the defence has an opportunity to cross examine. Following the Prosecution case, the defence may move a motion of no case to answer if the worst the prosecution has been able to lead in evidence would be insufficient to convict of any crime. If there remains a case to answer, the defence leads evidence from witnesses in an attempt to refute previous evidence led by the prosecution, with cross examination being permitted after each witness. Once both prosecution and defence have concluded leading evidence, the case goes to summing up where firstly the prosecution and then the defence get to sum up their case based on the evidence that has been heard. The jury is given guidance on points of law and then sent out to consider its verdict. Juries are composed of fifteen residents.^[37]

Spain[link]

Spain had no established tradition of using juries in trials, but the Constitution of 1978, legislates the right to a trial by jury, called "popular jury" as opposed to a "magistrates jury". The provision is arguably somewhat vague: "Section 125 - Citizens may engage in popular action and take part in the administration of justice through the institution of the jury, in the manner and with respect to those criminal trials as may be determined by law, as well as in customary and traditional courts."

Jury trials have been very slowly introduced in Spain and have often produced less than desirable results.^{[citation needed]} One of the first cases was that of Mikel Otegi who was tried in 1997 for the murder of two police officers. After a confused^{[clarification needed]} trial, five jury members of a total of nine voted to acquit and the judge ordered the accused set free. This verdict shocked the nation.^[38] Another alleged miscarriage of justice by jury trial was the Wanninkhof murder case.

Sweden[link]

Sweden has no tradition of using juries in most types of criminal or civil trial. The sole exception, since 1815, is in cases involving freedom of the press, prosecuted under Chapter 7 of the Freedom of the Press Act, part of Sweden's constitution ^[39]. The most frequently prosecuted offence under this act is defamation, although in total eighteen offences, including high treason and espionage, are covered. These cases are tried in district courts (first tier courts) by a jury of nine laymen.

The jury in press freedom cases rules only on the facts of the case and the question of guilt or innocence. The trial judge may overrule a jury's guilty verdict, but may not overrule an acquittal. A conviction requires a majority verdict of 6-3. Sentencing is the sole prerogative of judges.

Jury members must be Swedish citizens and resident in the county in which the case is being heard. They must be of sound judgement and known for their independence and integrity. Combined, they should represent a range of social groups and opinions, as well as all parts of the county. It is the county council that have the responsibility to appoints juries for a tenure of four years under which they may serve in multiple cases. The appointed jurymen are divided into two groups, in most counties the first with sixteen members and the second with eight. From this pool of available jurymen the court hears and excludes those with conflicts of interest in the case, after which the defendants and plaintiffs have the right to exclude a number of members, varying by county and group. The final jury is then randomly selected by drawing of lots.^[40][41]

Juries are not used in other criminal and civil cases. For most other cases in the first and second tier courts lay judges sit alongside professional judges. Lay judges participate in deciding both the facts of the case and sentencing. Lay judges are appointed by local authorities, or in practice by the political parties represented on the authorities^[42]. Lay judges are therefore usually selected from among political activists.

United States[link]

In criminal law in United States, in federal courts and in a minority of state court systems, a grand jury is convened to hear only testimony and evidence to determine whether there is a case to be answered and hence whether the accused should be indicted and sent for trial. In each court district where a grand jury is required, a group of 16–23 citizens holds an inquiry on criminal complaints brought by the prosecutor and decides if a trial is warranted (based on the standard that probable cause that a crime was committed exists), in which case an indictment is issued. In general, the size of juries tends to be larger if the crime alleged is more serious. If a grand jury rejects a proposed indictment it is known as a "no bill"; if they accept to endorse a proposed indictment it is known as a "true bill". Grand jury proceedings are ex parte: only the prosecutor may present evidence to the grand jury and defendants are not allowed to present mitigating evidence or even to know the testimony that was presented to the grand jury, and hearsay evidence is permitted. Grand juries vote to indict in the overwhelming majority of cases, and prosecutors are not prohibited from presenting the same case to a new grand jury if a "no bill" was returned by a previous grand jury. A typical grand jury considers a new criminal case every fifteen minutes. In some jurisdictions, in addition to indicting people for crimes, a grand jury may also issue reports on matters that they investigate apart from the criminal indictments that it produces, particularly when the grand jury investigation involves a public scandal. Historically, grand juries were sometimes used in American law to serve a purpose similar to an investigatory commission.

Both Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the Sixth Amendment require that criminal cases be tried by a jury,^[43] and the Fourteenth Amendment applies this mandate to the states. Although the initial draft did not require a jury for civil cases, this led to an uproar which was followed by the Seventh Amendment, which requires a civil jury in cases where the value in dispute is greater than twenty dollars.^[44] However, the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial does not apply in state courts, where the right to a jury is strictly a matter of state law.^[45] But, in practice, all states but Louisiana, preserve the right to a jury trial in almost all civil cases where the sole remedy sought is money damages to the same extent as jury trials are permitted by the 7th Amendment, although sometimes jury trials are not allowed in small claims cases. The civil jury in the United States is a defining element of the process by which personal injury trials are handled in the United States.

In practice most criminal actions in the U.S. are resolved by plea bargain,^[46] and only about 2% of civil cases go to trial, with only about half of those trials being conducted before juries.

In 1898 the Supreme Court held that the jury must be composed of at least twelve persons, although this was not necessarily extended to state civil jury trials.^[44] In 1970, however, the Supreme Court held that the twelve persons requirement was a "historical accident", and upheld six-person juries in both criminal and civil cases. There is controversy over smaller juries, with proponents arguing that they are more efficient and opponents arguing that they lead to fluctuating verdicts.^[44] In later case, however, the court rejected the use of 5-person juries in criminal cases.^[44] Juries go through a selection process called voir dire in which the lawyers question the jurors and then make "peremptory strikes" (remove jurors). Traditionally the removal of jurors required no justification or explanation, but the tradition has been challenged by the Supreme Court. Since the 1970s "scientific jury selection" has become popular.^[44]

Unanimous jury verdicts have been standard in Western law. This standard was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1897, but it was rejected in 1972 in two criminal cases. As of 1999 over thirty states had laws allowing less than unanimity in civil cases, but Oregon and Louisiana are the only states which have laws allowing less than unanimous jury verdicts for criminal cases.^[44] When the required number of jurors cannot agree on a verdict (a situation sometimes referred to as a hung jury), a mistrial is declared, and the case may be retried with a newly constituted jury. The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of facts on guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. This has not been changed by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 284 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge decide on aggravating factors making a defendant eligible for the death penalty, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. However, in some states (such as Alabama or Florida), the ultimate decision on the punishment is made by the judge, and the jury gives only a non binding recommendation. The judge can impose the death penalty even if the jury recommends life without parole.^[47]

There is no set format for jury deliberations, and the jury will take a period of time to settle into discussing the evidence. Electing a foreman is usually the first step, although for a particularly short or straightforward case, this may not happen until the delivery of the verdict. If a foreman is elected at the beginning, he or she will chair the discussions. The first step will typically be to find out the initial feeling or reaction to the case, which may be by a show of hands, or via secret ballot. The jury will then attempt to arrive at a consensus verdict. The exchanges of views caused by people whose opinions differ from the emerging consensus will air the issues involved in the case, and consequently points will often arise from the trial that were not specifically discussed during it. The result of these discussions is likely to be that one interpretation is shown to be the most reasonable, and a verdict is thus achieved.

In civil cases, a petit jury determines liability and damages based upon jury instructions provided by the judge.

In criminal cases, after it is determined that a case will proceed to trial, a separate petit jury (formed of petit jurors) is then convened to hear the trial. In a few states and in death penalty cases, depending upon the law, a third jury or more often the same jury, will determine what the penalty should be or recommend what the penalty should be in the penalty phase. Usually, however, sentencing will be handled by the judge at a separate hearing. At a sentencing hearing, the burden of proof is now preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt and hearsay is allowed. This practice gives the judge the power to change the finding of the jury when deciding on a sentence.^[48]

When used alone the term jury usually refers to a petit jury, rather than a grand jury.

Jury selection[link]

Jurors are selected from a jury pool formed for a specified period of time—usually from one day to two weeks—from lists of citizens living in the jurisdiction of the court. The lists may be electoral rolls (i.e., a list of registered voters in the locale), people who have driver's licenses or other relevant data bases. When selected, being a member of a jury pool is, in principle, compulsory. Prospective jurors are sent a summons and are obligated to appear in a specified jury pool room on a specified date.

However, jurors can be released from the pool for several reasons including illness, prior commitments that can't be abandoned without hardship, change of address to outside the court's jurisdiction, travel or employment outside the jurisdiction at the time of duty, and others. Often jurisdictions pay token amounts for jury duty and many issue stipends to cover transportation expenses for jurors. Work places cannot penalize employees who serve jury duty. Payments to jurors varies by jurisdiction.^[49]

In the United States jurors for grand juries are selected from jury pools.

Selection of jurors from a jury pool occurs when a trial is announced and juror names are randomly selected and called out by the jury pool clerk. Depending on the type of trial—whether a 6 person or 12 person jury is needed, in the United States—anywhere from 15 to 30 prospective jurors are sent to the courtroom to participate in voir dire, pronounced [vwaʁ diʁ] in French, and defined as the oath to speak the truth in the examination testing competence of a juror, or in another application, a witness. Once the list of prospective jurors has assembled in the courtroom the court clerk assigns them seats in the order their names were originally drawn. At this point the judge often will ask each prospective juror to answer a list of general questions such as name, occupation, education, family relationships, time conflicts for the anticipated length of the trial. The list is usually written up and clearly visible to assist nervous prospective jurors and may include several questions uniquely pertinent to the particular trial. These questions are to familiarize the judge and attorneys with the jurors and glean biases, experiences, or relationships that could jeopardize the proper course of the trial.

After each prospective juror has answered the general slate of questions the attorneys may ask followup questions of some or all prospective jurors. Each side in the trial is allotted a certain number of challenges to remove prospective jurors from consideration. Some challenges are issued during voir dire while others are presented to the judge at the end of voir dire. The judge calls out the names of the anonymously challenged prospective jurors and those return to the pool for consideration in other trials. A jury is formed, then, of the remaining prospective jurors in the order that their names were originally chosen. Any prospective jurors not thusly impaneled return to the jury pool room.

Jury behavior[link]

Scholarly research on jury behavior in American non-capital criminal felony trials reveals that juror outcomes appear to track the opinions of the median juror, rather than the opinions of the extreme juror on the panel, although juries were required to render unanimous verdicts in the jurisdictions studied.^[50] Thus, although juries must render unanimous verdicts, in run-of-the-mill criminal trials they behave in practice as if they were operating using a majority rules voting system.

Jury effectiveness[link]

As much of the research on social conformity suggests, individuals tend to lose their sense of individuality when faced with powerful group forces (i.e., normative influence; informational influence; interpersonal influence).^[51] This seemingly stark realization raises the question: Is the effectiveness of jury decision-making compromised by individuals’ tendencies to conform to the normative transmissions of a group?

Since a clear archetype for determining guilt does not exist, the criminal justice system must rely on rulings handed down by juries. Even after a decision has been made, it is virtually impossible to know whether a jury has been correct or incorrect in freeing or accusing a defendant of a crime. Although establishing the effectiveness of juries is an arduous task, contemporary research has provided partial support for the proficiency of juries as decision makers.^[51]

The role of a Juror[link]

Evidence has shown that jurors typically take their roles very seriously.^[52] According to Simon (1980), jurors approach their responsibilities as decision makers much in the same way as a court judge – with great seriousness, a lawful mind, and a concern for consistency that is evidence-based. By actively processing evidence, making inferences, using common sense and personal experiences to inform their decision-making, research has indicated that jurors are effective decision makers that seek thorough understanding, rather than passive, apathetic participants unfit to serve on a jury.^[53]

Judge-jury agreement[link]

Evidence supporting jury effectiveness has also been illustrated in studies that investigate the parallels between judge and jury decision-making.^[54] According to Kalven and Zeisel (1966), it is not uncommon to find that the verdicts passed down by juries following a trial match the verdicts held by the appointed judges. Upon surveying judges and jurors of approximately 8000 criminal and civil trials, it was discovered that the verdicts handed down by both parties were in agreement 80% of the time.^[54] Such unpremeditated judge-jury agreement supports the notion that juries are effective decision-making bodies.

Buffering effects[link]

Jurors, like most individuals, are not free from holding social and cognitive biases. Oftentimes people negatively judge individuals who do not adhere to established social norms (e.g., individuals who dress “freakishly”) or do not meet societal standards of success. Although these biases tend to influence jurors’ individual decisions during a trial,^[55] while working as part of a group (i.e., jury), these biases are typically controlled.^[56] Groups tend to exert buffering effects that allow jurors to disregard their initial personal biases when forming a credible group decision.

Notes[link]

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Jury

This article contains translated text and needs attention from someone approaching dual fluency. Please see this article's entry on Pages needing translation into English for discussion. If you have just labeled this page as needing such attention, please add {{subst:Duflu | pg= Manuel Valls | Language = | Comments = }} ~~~~ to the bottom of the WP:PNTCU section on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English.

Manuel Valls
Minister of the Interior
Incumbent
Assumed office 16 May 2012
President	François Hollande
Prime Minister	Jean-Marc Ayrault
Preceded by	Claude Guéant
Mayor of Évry
Incumbent
Assumed office 18 March 2001
Preceded by	Christian Olivier
Member of the National Assembly from Essonne's 1st constituency
Incumbent
Assumed office 19 June 2002
Preceded by	Jacques Guyard
Personal details
Born	(1962-08-13) 13 August 1962 (age 49) Barcelona, Spain
Political party	Socialist Party
Alma mater	University of Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne
Religion	Roman Catholic
Website	Official website

Manuel Valls (French: [manyɛl vals], Catalan: [mənuˈɛɫ ˈβaʎs], born August 13, 1962) is a French Socialist Party (PS) politician, deputy since 2002 and mayor of Évry. On May 16, 2012 he was appointed Minister of the Interior (Homeland security) in the French government of Jean-Marc Ayrault.

Valls was born in Barcelona, Spain, and became a naturalized French citizen in 1982. He is a prominent supporter of F.C. Barcelona, the famous club whose anthem was composed by a namesake of his, the cousin of his father. As reported on the Swiss Newspapers last week he is the son of a Spanish citizen, while his mother is a Ticinese, Swiss-Italian from Valle di Blenio, Canton Ticino.

After serving as an advisor on youth issues for Prime Minister Michel Rocard from 1988 to 1991, he was communications advisor to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin from 1997 to 2001.

He sought the PS nomination for President of France in the 2012 election. Finally ranked 5th of the first round of the PS primary, he called for a François Hollande vote in the second round. Valls is often considered in France as a representative of the social-liberal wing of the French Socialist Party, sharing common orientations with Scandinavian style Social Democracy and Blairism.

Biography[link]

Origins, family[link]

Carlos Manuel Valls looks upon himself as "son of Catalonia" with a "Spanish spirit", as he was born in Barcelona, because his parents "were on vacation and wanted their eldest son to be born there". He got French nationality in 1982.

His paternal grandfather was editor-in-chief in a Catholic and republican newspaper in Spain. During the Spanish Civil War, he hides at his home some catholic church members persecuted by some trotskyists and anarchists. After Francisco Franco's victory, he had been forbidden to continue his job of editor. His father is the painter Xavier Valls (1923-2006)^[1] · ,^[2] also born in Barcelona, ​​who emigrated to Paris by the late 1940s. There he met his future wife Luisangela Galfetti, sister of the Swiss architect Aurelio Galfetti. He is also cousin of Manuel Valls Gorina, who composed the Hymn of FC Barcelona.
Thanks to family melting pot Manuel Valls is fluent in French, Spanish, Catalan and Italian.^[3] He was married in 1987 with Nathalie Soulié, they got 4 chidren before divorcing. He married 1 July 2010^[4] with Anne Gravoin who is violonist awarded by the Conservatoire de Paris^[5] · .^[6]

Political involvement[link]

He joined in 1980 at 17 years old the French Socialist Party (PS) to support Michel Rocard. Within the PS, he defends the second left, Rocard, more pragmatic face of François Mitterrand. While studying history at the University of Paris I Tolbiac he was part of the progressist student union, the UNEF-ID.

Between 1983 and 1986 he was a member of the staff of the member of parliament Robert Chapuis, deputy for Ardeche, and in 1988 succeeded Henri Kaminska as head of PS Bezons Argenteuil. At 24 he was elected to the Regional Council of Ile de France, which becomes senior vice president in 1998. Between 1991 and 1993 is attached interministerial delegate of the Winter Olympics in Albertville 1992. He then became national secretary of the Socialist Party of communication and first secretary of the federation in Val d'Oise. Then handles the communication and media relations of the Cabinet of Lionel Jospin, Prime Minister of France between 1997 and 2002.

In March 2001 and in 2008, he was elected mayor of Evry and in 2002 deputy in the French National Assembly by the First District of Essonne, was reelected in 2007.

In the succession of François Hollande in front of PS in November 2008, takes sides in favor of Ségolène Royal. Following the results (considering controversial) claims the arbitration court against the suspicions of electoral fraud in the strongholds of North and Seine-Maritime, in favor of Martine Aubry.

2011 primaries and presidential campaign[link]

On June 13, 2009, Manuel Valls announced his intention to run for the Socialist primary in 2011 for the 2012 presidential election. June 30, 2009 he founded the club "Left needs optimism," "Legal and Financial Support" to present to the primary socialiste29. On 7 June 2011, he confirmed his candidacy for the Socialist primary.

On the evening of the first round, Oct. 9, 2011, Manuel Valls achieved a score of 6% of the vote, just behind Ségolène Royal, and was eliminated in the first round of the Socialist primary. On the night of his defeat, he endorsed Francois Hollande in the second round.

During the 2012 presidential election, he was the communications director of the PS nominee Francois Hollande, becoming one of the pillars of the campaign team.

Political orientations[link]

He is commonly classified in the "right wing" of the Socialist Party with a similar approach as the German and Scandinavian Social Democracies. He defined himself in the past as "Blairite" or "clintonien" and describes his position "is in the tradition of Pierre Mendes France, Lionel Jospin and Michel Rocard" (Socialist primary of 2011). It can be included to the third-way movement.

He preaches for an "economically realistic" political speech without any "demagoguery". He voices his dissent in the party by his vision of individual responsabilities ("The new proposal of the left must be the individual self-realization: to allow everyone to become what it is") and his positions againts a system wher some people live only from nationnal solidarity.

Describing himself as "reformist rather than revolutionary," he wants to "reconcile the left to the liberal approach."

Economic policy and European integration[link]

Among the desired economic reforms, it is particularly favorable to the establishment of "social VAT", designed primarily to increase the VAT number of consumer products called "non essential" in exchange for reducing contribution with on wages ("Fiscal policy will have to undergo an increase in VAT. This is the VAT or social protection-that I propose.")

It also calls for extending the contribution period to set the age of retirement and "alignment of the special [retirement] on the general scheme. "

In 2010, he expressed support for the control of the European Commission on national budgets, saying it is "definitely" necessary. "In the world as it is, who needs large sets, we need more integration of our economic policies, more coordination, it is true in monetary terms, this is true on the fiscal and this is true for taxes, "said he.

International issues[link]

Asked in July 2011 on his attendance at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group, he confirmed that he was invited to Washington two years ago, while considering that this group was too "Atlanticist" and was open to the world. Similarly, he considers that "it would have to be too large leftist organizations, political, social," in European and global level.

Social issues[link]

Immigration[link]

In his book "To finish with the old socialism ... and finally to be left", he expressed support for "quota" of immigration, approves the extension of the pension contribution to 41 years provided that they imagine starting a 'la carte, "according to the arduous career, and regrets the" fatwas non-GM "and antinuclear.

Safety[link]

Elected to a city with security problems, he advocates a policy of firmness and is favorable to the municipal police, armed if necessary (primary Socialists of 2011). It stigmatizes the other hand what he calls "the politics of numbers" Fillon government.

Secularism[link]

Secularism In opposite, he demanded an overhaul of the 1905 law separating church and state saying that "nobody wants to touch it, but it is bypassed at all times; everyone seeks a subterfuge to achieve its ends . [...] Our country can not escape even if the revision is not a review with a large R. The law has also been amended several times since its adoption. The Republic could thus offer a symbolic moment to breathe new life to secularism. It should be a public review of the application of secularism that goes through a parliamentary debate. What a beautiful way to restore the ideal layman in the heart of French society and make a shared value. "

In 2002, he opposed the store Franprix Evry who intends to sell only halal products.

Cannabis[link]

On 12 October 2009, Manuel Valls expressed "total disagreement" with the proposed decriminalization or legalization of cannabis made framed by Daniel Vaillant who did attempt to deprive traffickers including a source of income, arguing Valls risk of loss benchmarks, of late prohibited, and that "the drug, [...] source of the underground economy, can not be treated well."

Political strategies[link]

In the summer of 2011, he states that "men and women like Dominique de Villepin, Bayrou or Corinne Lepage, to name a few, may belong, if they wish, a majority with broad ". He advocates a political cooperation with the humanist center and center left on some issues.

Former mandates[link]

Minister of Interior : Since May 2012

Member of the National Assembly of France for Essonne (1st constituency) : 2002-2012 (Became minister in May). Elected in 2002, reelected in 2007.

Vice-president of the Regional Council of Ile-de-France : 1998-2002 (Resignation).

Regional councillor of Ile-de-France : 1986-2002 (Resignation).

Mayor of Évry : Since 2001. Reelected in 2008.

Municipal councillor of Évry : Since 2001. Reelected in 2008.

Deputy-mayor of Argenteuil : 1989-1998 (Resignation).

Municipal councillor of Argenteuil : 1989-1998 (Resignation).

Works[link]

• Les habits neufs de la gauche, éditions Robert Laffont, 2006
• La laïcité en face, a dialog with Virginie Malabard, Éditions Desclée de Brouwer, 2005
• Pour en finir avec le vieux socialisme... et être enfin de gauche, a dialog with Claude Askolovitch, Robert Laffont, 2008

References[link]

1. ^ (French)Biographie de Xavier Valls on claude-bernard.com website
2. ^ (Spanish) Ana María Preckler, Historia del arte universal de los siglos XIX y XX, Editorial Complutense, 2003, tome II, p. 509

   This 8474917077 lacks ISBNs for the books listed in it. Please make it easier to conduct research by listing ISBNs. If the {{Cite book}} or {{citation}} templates are in use, you may add ISBNs automatically, or discuss this issue on the talk page. (June 2012)

   .
3. ^ (French)Ce qu'il faut savoir de Manuel Valls », www.lejdd.fr, May 16, 2012.
4. ^ (French)« Manuel Valls va se marier en juillet », Le Nouvel Observateur, January 10, 2010.
5. ^ (French)« La table de chevet de... Manuel Valls », Les Échos, nb60, February 15, 2008, p.50.
6. ^ (French)« Manuel Valls ouvre les fenêtres de la musique », Radio classique, May 16, 2008.

External links[link]

• Manuel Valls web site
• Data on the site of the French National Assembly
• CityMayors profile

v t e Ayrault Cabinet Jean-Marc Ayrault Laurent Fabius Vincent Peillon Christiane Taubira Pierre Moscovici Marisol Touraine Cécile Duflot Manuel Valls Nicole Bricq Arnaud Montebourg Michel Sapin Jean-Yves Le Drian Aurélie Filippetti Geneviève Fioraso Najat Vallaud-Belkacem Stéphane Le Foll Marylise Lebranchu Victorin Lurel Valérie Fourneyron

Travis Friend

Personal information
Batting style	Right-hand bat
Bowling style	Right-arm fast-medium
Career statistics
Competition	Tests	ODIs
Matches	13	51
Runs scored	447	548
Batting average	29.80	16.11
100s/50s	0/3	0/3
Top score	81	91
Balls bowled	2000	1930
Wickets	25	37
Bowling average	43.60	48.08
5 wickets in innings	1	0
10 wickets in match	0	n/a
Best bowling	5/31	4/55
Catches/stumpings	2/-	17/-
Source: Cricinfo, 11 February 2006

Travis John "Chunks" Friend (born 7 January 1981 in Kwekwe, Midlands) is a former Zimbabwean Test and One Day International cricketer. Friend captained Zimbabwe in four under-19 ODIs and went on to play a full senior ODI for Zimbabwe aged 19. A stress fracture to his back set him back, but he later returned to the Test squad. One of the 15 "rebels" of Zimbabwean cricket, his Test career now looks finished. In 2005 he was contracted by Derbyshire CCC but made little impact in the County Championship and was not retained for 2006. In 2009 he signed up for the summer with Castletown Cricket Club in the Isle of Man --- the first time any of the island's teams could boast a former Test player.

He is now a Commercial Pilot based on the Isle of Man for British airline Flybe.

References[link]

• http://www.brmtaylor.com/news-142.html
• Cricinfo page on Travis Friend

v t e Zimbabwe squad – 2003 Cricket World Cup 1 Streak (c) 2 Blignaut 3 Ebrahim 4 Ervine 5 A Flower (wk) 6 GW Flower 7 Friend 8 Hondo 9 Marillier 10 Murphy 11 Olonga 12 Taibu (wk) 13 Vermeulen 14 Whittall 15 Wishart 16 Campbell 17 Matsikenyeri Coach: Marsh Campbell and Matsikenyeri replaced Vermeulen and Murphy on 10 March 2003

This biographical article related to Zimbabwean cricket is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e

Luke Ravenstahl
Ravenstahl speaking to the AFL-CIO
58th Mayor of Pittsburgh
Incumbent
Assumed office September 1, 2006
Preceded by	Bob O'Connor
President of the Pittsburgh City Council
In office December 6, 2005[1] – September 1, 2006
Preceded by	Gene Ricciardi
Succeeded by	Doug Shields
Member of the Pittsburgh City Council from the 1st District
In office January 5, 2004[2] – September 1, 2006
Preceded by	Barbara Burns
Succeeded by	Darlene Harris
Personal details
Born	(1980-02-06) February 6, 1980 (age 32) Troy Hill, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Erin Lynn Feith (2004-2011)
Alma mater	Washington & Jefferson College
Religion	Roman Catholic
Signature

Luke Robert Ravenstahl (born February 6, 1980) is the current Mayor of Pittsburgh. In September 2006, he became the youngest mayor in Pittsburgh's history at the age of 26.^[3] He is among the youngest mayors of a major city in American history.^[4]

A graduate of North Catholic High School, Ravenstahl attended the University of Pittsburgh before graduating from Washington & Jefferson College. Four months after his graduation, aged 23, he ran for a seat on the Pittsburgh City Council. He was elected and took office in January 2004 before being appointed City Council President in December 2005. After the death of Pittsburgh mayor Bob O'Connor, Ravenstahl became the mayor, per the city's charter, on September 1, 2006. He later won a special election in 2007, and a regular election in 2009.

Personal life[link]

Luke Ravenstahl votes in 2008 Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary on April 22, 2008

Ravenstahl's father, Robert P. Ravenstahl Jr., is a district magistrate on the Northside, ^[5] and head coach for the North Catholic High School football team. His grandfather, Robert P. Ravenstahl Sr., represented the 20th legislative district as a state representative, was a Democratic ward leader in the North Side, and was defeated in the 1976 Democratic primary by a young Tom Murphy, who would go on to become mayor himself.^[6] Ravenstahl's mother is currently a teacher's aide with the Allegheny Intermediate Unit. Ravenstahl is the eldest of three brothers including Adam Ravenstahl, a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

Ravenstahl graduated from North Catholic High School in 1998, where he was class president and played baseball and football. He attended Washington & Jefferson College, where he graduated with honors with a degree in business administration in December 2002.^[7] He was W&J's starting place kicker on the football team for three years and was team captain for his senior year.^[8][7][9] He currently holds the school record for most consecutive extra points.^[10] Following graduation from W&J, Ravenstahl worked as an account manager for a courier service.^[11]

In August 2004, he married Erin Lynn Feith, whom he had begun dating in high school. They resided in the Summer Hill neighborhood of the Northside. Ravenstahl is a Roman Catholic and attends mass weekly at Holy Wisdom Parish on the Northside.^[12]

Luke and Erin's only child was born on October 31, 2008 shortly before 9:30 in the morning. He is named Cooper Luke Ravenstahl.

On May 19, 2007, Ravenstahl delivered the keynote address at Washington & Jefferson College's 208th commencement celebration.^[9] He served as honorary co-captain with fellow W&J graduate Roger Goodell during W&J's 2006 homecoming football game.^[13]

As a sign of support for the Pittsburgh Steelers' 2009 AFC Championship game against the Baltimore Ravens, Ravenstahl ceremonially changed his name to "Luke Steelerstahl" on January 14, 2009.^[14] Court officials did not actually file the name change paperwork, and his legal name remains Ravenstahl.^[15]

On November 23, 2009, Ravenstahl announced that he and his wife, Erin, had split and that he has moved out of the home that they had shared. He was quoted as saying "She doesn't like the limelight. She didn't like the fact that I became the mayor. She doesn't like the public nature of the position."^[16] On November 24, the mayor announced that he and his wife were "formally separating," but had no plans to officially file for divorce.^[17] On March 11, 2011, Erin Ravenstahl filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences.^[18] Their divorce was finalized in late July 2011.^[19]

City Council[link]

In April 2003, Ravenstahl ran for the Democratic nomination for the Pittsburgh City Council's District 1 seat against incumbent Barbara Burns. Ravenstahl defeated Burns with 54.5% of the vote.^[2] He credited his win to a combination of grassroots campaigning, a voter registration drive aimed at 18- to 25- year-olds, and a general dissatisfaction with Mayor Murphy.^[20][21] Ravenstahl was sworn in as the youngest member of City Council in Pittsburgh's history in January 2004. During his first few weeks on City Council, Ravenstahl's bill to reduce the newly imposed parking tax from 50% to 33% was vetoed by Mayor Tom Murphy, who was unwilling to balance the budget with $3 million from the Urban Redevelopment Authority.^[22]

City Council President[link]

On December 6, 2005, Ravenstahl became the youngest President of the Pittsburgh City Council, when Gene Ricciardi (who had been elected district justice) stepped down from that post in a move seen as paving the way for ally Jim Motznik.^[11][23] However, Motznik was unable to secure the votes needed to win the presidency, and Ravenstahl emerged as a compromise candidate.^[24] He was re-elected unanimously at the re-organization meeting in January 2006, when the new members of the city council took office. One of his first major hurdles was to deal with the two state budget oversight boards.^[25] Per provisions in the city's charter, Ravenstahl ascended from the office of City Council President to Mayor on September 1, 2006, following the death of Mayor Bob O'Connor.

Mayor of Pittsburgh[link]

Due to ambiguous language in the city's charter, a controversy developed about how long Ravenstahl could temporarily serve as mayor before an election had to be held. Ravenstahl stated his desire to fulfill the remainder of O'Connor's term.^[26][27][28]

The charter refers to holding a new election when someone ascends to mayor through a vacancy but makes no mention of serving out the full term. It was unclear when the election could or should be held due to a confusing phrase that says the "vacancy in the mayor's office shall be filled at the next election permitted by law", yet not elaborating on what "permitted by law" means.^[29]

Ravenstahl instructed the city's legal department to quickly obtain a decision as to when the election should be held.^[30] On October 12, 2006, the Allegheny County Board of Elections decided unanimously that mayoral candidates would compete in the May 15, 2007, primary election followed by the November 6, 2007, general election, with the winner of the general election taking office immediately after the certification of the election results for a term ending in January 2010.^[31]

In his first official act as mayor, Ravenstahl ordered the city flag at all city locations to be flown at half staff and declared the city in a state of mourning. Ravenstahl and deputy mayor Yarone Zober had been coordinating city government since O'Connor's medical diagnosis in July 2006, which limited O'Connor to the confines of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Shadyside, while O'Connor convalesced.^{[citation needed]}

Media coverage of Ravenstahl has included a feature story in The New York Times, and an appearance on Late Show with David Letterman on September 14, 2006. Ravenstahl was concerned about how appropriate the coverage would appear in the wake of Bob O'Connor's death, but O'Connor's widow encouraged him to participate in the media coverage and continue O'Connor's work as a "cheerleader" for Pittsburgh.^[32]

Ravenstahl played an important role in helping other local officials, including Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell negotiate with the Mario Lemieux-led Pittsburgh Penguins ownership group to keep the team in Pittsburgh.^[33][34]

After generally following O'Connor's agenda for the first few months of his term, Ravenstahl began to implement his own agenda, including pursuing a tax break for new housing in downtown, proposing college aid for city high school graduates, improving diversity in city government.^[35] He also began replacing O'Connor's staffers with his own.^[35] He also continued O'Connor's "311" city help line proposal, as well as the "Redd-Up" crews.^[36][37]

Pittsburgh promise[link]

On December 13, 2006 Mayor Ravenstahl launched an historic partnership between the City of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh Public Schools to develop 'The Pittsburgh Promise', a college access program and revitalization strategy for the City of Pittsburgh.^[38] The Pittsburgh Promise would make higher education achievable for all Pittsburgh Public Schools students regardless of need or income. It also would enhance the economic development of the City. By September 2011 the scholarship fund reached $12.5 million, with students eligible for $40,000 scholarships in two years if they maintain an attendance record of 90 % and a minimum GPA of 2.5.^[39] The Pittsburgh Promise focuses on more than just help students move on to higher education, it also aims to tackle the City’s declining public school enrollment and overall population. As of 2009, there was a growth in kindergarten enrollment and a shrinking percentage of declines in public school enrollment. ^[40]

2007 Special election[link]

Ravenstahl debates Mark DeSantis at Point Park University on October 30, 2007.

Ravenstahl was unopposed on the ballot in the Democratic primary, held on May 17, 2007, to finish the remainder of Bob O'Connor's unfinished term. His chief opponent, Pittsburgh City Council member Bill Peduto, withdrew before the primary.^[41] His eventual Republican challenger, CEO and adjunct professor at Carnegie Mellon University Mark DeSantis did not appear on the Republican ballot, instead gaining the nomination through a write-in campaign.^[42]

DeSantis' candidacy garnered an unusual amount of interest in a city where no Republican had been elected mayor since the Great Depression. He was endorsed by Pittsburgh's two major newspapers, including the conservative-leaning Pittsburgh Tribune Review^[43] and the liberal-leaning Pittsburgh Post Gazette.^[44] He was also endorsed by the city's police union^[45] and was profiled on Fox News.^[46]

Ravenstahl defeated DeSantis 63% to 35%.^[47][48][49]

Tree give-away[link]

Every year, Ravenstahl hosts a giveaway of free trees supported by the Shady Tree Commission, Friends of the Pittsburgh Urban Forest, and Eilser’s Nursery.^[50]

Ravenstahl created the tree give away in support of TreeVitalize's goal of planting 20,000 trees by the year 2012. ^[51]

G20 Comes to Pittsburgh[link]

In 2009 the Obama Administration announced that the leaders of the world’s largest economies would meet in Pittsburgh for the G20 Summit. Pittsburgh was chosen due to its transformation after the collapse of the Steel Industry with a renewed focus on environmental, economic, and technological innovation. "Pittsburgh boasts world class culture and President approved industries crucial for the growth of a nation"^[52]. A key to the City’s transformation has been collaboration amongst all sectors of society. Mayor Ravenstahl saw the G20 as an "opportunity to reintroduce the world to Pittsburgh – the new Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh that is doing better than most and providing opportunities for folks. We really want to tell that story of that great turn around the president keeps talking about when he talks about Pittsburgh."^[53]

2008 Democratic Presidential Primary in Pennsylvania[link]

Ravenstahl marches with Hillary Clinton and Catherine Baker Knoll in Pittsburgh's St. Patrick's Day Parade in 2008

Ravenstahl and Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton at a rally on March 14, 2008, at Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall. The double endorsements, coupled with endorsements from Governor Ed Rendell and Lt. Governor Catherine Baker Knoll, were seen as an indication of her strong support in Pennsylvania.^[54] Ravenstahl marched with Clinton the next day in Pittsburgh's annual St. Patrick's Day Parade^[55]

2009 Election[link]

On May 19, 2009, Ravenstahl beat City Councilman Patrick Dowd and attorney Carmen Robinson to earn the Democratic nomination in the 2009 election. In the general election, he defeated his two independent competitors to earn a full term as mayor.

Pittsburgh's Third Renaissance[link]

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011)

Mayor Ravenstahl unveiled an 11 point plan to usher in Pittsburgh’s Third Renaissance. It included resolving the long term costs of the City, encouraging healthcare and education industries, utilizing the best technology throughout the City, finishing riverfront development, enriching public education, connecting jobs with people, government reform through transparency and civic involvement, ensuring Pittsburgh’s neighborhoods are clean and safe, greening the city, and promoting diversity. ^[56]

Pittsburgh began to take on revitalization projects and initiatives including, Redd Up Zones, the North Shore Connector, Allegheny Riverfront Vision, Three PNC Plaza, the August Wilson Center, the Three Rivers Heritage Trail, and Brownfield site redevelopment that includes South Side Works, Washington’s Landing, Pittsburgh’s Technology Center, and Summerset at Frick Park. Programs such as ServePgh, Green Up, Taking Care of Business, Love Your Block, and the Civic Leadership Academy aid in the City’s Third Renaissance. Ravenstahl also took on financial problems by sharing City’s services and resources through purchasing in bulk with the County and other entities and merging the Housing Authority and the Police Department. ^[57]

Market Square revitalization[link]

Continuing to push Pittsburgh's third Renaissance, on October 26, 2010, Ravenstahl reopened the newly renovated Market Square. The $5 million improvement project was the culmination of several years of public process, made possible through the leadership, vision and financial contributions of The City of Pittsburgh, Urban Redevelopment Authority, Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership, Heinz Endowments, Richard King Mellon Foundation, Colcom Foundation, and the Hillman Foundation.^[58]

servePGH initiative[link]

On September 10, 2009, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl pledged that the City of Pittsburgh would help the country achieve the goals of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act by joining Mayor Bloomberg and 15 other mayors from across our nation to launch the Cities of Service coalition.^[59] By signing the Declaration of Service, Mayor Ravenstahl committed to develop a coordinated effort to utilize impact volunteerism as a significant municipal strategy to address local challenges.

The City of Pittsburgh’s service blueprint, servePGH, seeks to leverage local human capital through impact volunteerism directed towards two of Mayor Ravenstahl’s top priorities: neighborhood development and youth.

The new 'servePGH website' was created to connect volunteers with the high impact service initiatives described within servePGH, including:

• Love Your Block: Providing resources for volunteers to revitalize the City – block by block
• Redd Up Zone: Recruiting volunteers to remove litter and enhance the appearance, safety and cleanliness of Pittsburgh's streets
• Snow Angels: Matching volunteers with neighbors-in-need to shovel and de-ice their sidewalk during the winter months
• Mayor’s Mentoring Initiative: The City of Pittsburgh’s first-ever employee volunteer program, allowing City employees weekly leave time to mentor a middle-school student at a Pittsburgh Public School in partnership with the 'Be A 6th Grade Mentor' project.
• Civic Leadership Academy: A free program about local government created by Mayor Ravenstahl to foster more informed, effective and inspired community and civic leadership

Criticism and controversies[link]

Lemieux Celebrity Invitational Golf incident[link]

Ravenstahl also created controversy for his participation in the $9,000-a-head Mario Lemieux Celebrity Invitational golf outing in June 2007. His participation was sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the Pittsburgh Penguins. Members of the Pittsburgh city ethics board cited concerns about the "perception" that he might owe something to those who subsidized his participation.^[60] Republican mayoral candidate Mark DeSantis challenged Ravenstahl to sign an 'ethics pledge' in response to this incident. Six months later, mayor Ravenstahl introduced legislation that would have kept UPMC from paying any future taxes, and possibly some current taxes.^[61] Further complicating matters was that the mayor held this for weeks until the very last session of the 2007 City Council (2 of the 9 members were outgoing, and one had resigned under indictment).^[62]

Questionable use of police vehicle[link]

Over the weekend of August 18, 2007, Ravenstahl used a Homeland Security funded SUV to go to a Toby Keith concert at the Post Gazette Pavilion. The Mayor's use of the GMC Yukon to travel to the concert may have violated the terms of the grant that funded the purchase of the vehicle. Responding to the allegations of impropriety, Ravenstahl said "I'm still going to continue to be who I'm going to be, and go to concerts like I always have, and go to have a drink with my wife in bars. That's what 27-year-olds do and I shouldn't be any different ... [I]'m not going to change my life to appease the media or appease somebody who wants me to be somebody I'm not. I think the fact that I'm 27 is something the city should embrace and it's something that I've embraced."^[63] Sgt. Mona Wallace was reportedly intimidated for reporting the incident to Public Safety Director Michael Huss.^[64] Police Chief Nate Harper began disciplinary measures against Wallace, but the reprimand was rescinded by Huss.^[63]